DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond Animal Warfare Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MPIL RESEARCH PAPER SERIES | No. 2021-10 BEYOND ANIMAL WARFARE LAW Humanizing the “War on Animals” and the Need for Complementary Animal Rights Saskia Stucki ISSN 2702-9360 1 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3824924 MPIL RESEARCH PAPER SERIES No. 2021-10 BEYOND ANIMAL WARFARE LAW HUMANIZING THE “WAR ON ANIMALS” AND THE NEED FOR COMPLEMENTARY ANIMAL RIGHTS AUTHOR Saskia Stucki EDITORIAL DIRECTORS Armin von Bogdandy, Anne Peters EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Angelo Jr. Golia TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Verena Schaller-Soltau Angelika Schmidt 2 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3824924 ISSN 2702-9360 All MPIL Research Papers are available on the MPIL website at www.mpil.de/de/ pub/publikationen/mpil-research-paper-series.cfm and on the SSRN at https:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/JELJOUR_Results.cfm?form_name=journalbrowse&journal_ id=2765113 “ Copyright remains with the author Suggested citation Stucki, Saskia, Beyond Animal Warfare Law: Humanizing the ‘War on Animals’ and the Need for Complementary Animal Rights (April 12, 2021). Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2021-10, In: American Journal of Comparative Law (2022) (forthcoming) Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3824924 3 This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. 3 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3824924 ABSTRACT This article puts forward a novel analogy between animal welfare law and international humanitarian law – two seemingly unrelated bodies of law that are both marked by the aporia of humanizing the inhumane. Based on a comparative analysis with the law of war, this article argues that animal welfare law is best understood as a kind of warfare law which regulates violent activities within an ongoing “war on animals,” and needs to be complemented by a jus contra bellum and peacetime animal rights. KEYWORDS: animal rights, animal welfare law, international humanitarian law, law of war, human rights, global animal law, comparative law MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2021-10 4 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3824924 Beyond Animal Warfare Law: Humanizing the “War on Animals” and the Need for Complementary Animal Rights Saskia Stucki* War is peace – George Orwell, 1984 INTRODUCTION Here is a hand-to-hand struggle in all its horror and frightfulness; Austrians and Allies trampling each other under foot, killing one another on piles of bleeding corpses, felling their enemies with their rifle butts, crushing skulls, ripping bellies open with sabre and bayonet … it is a sheer butchery; a struggle between savage beasts, maddened with blood and fury … Brains spurt under the wheels, limbs are broken and torn, bodies mutilated past recognition – the soil is literally puddled with blood, and the plain littered with human remains … But nothing stopped the carnage, arrested or lessened it. There was slaughter in the mass, and slaughter man by man. Henri Dunant, A Memory of Solferino … the men upon the floor were going about their work … one by one they hooked up the hogs, and one by one with a swift stroke they slit their throats. There was a long line of hogs, with squeals and lifeblood ebbing away together ... It was all so very businesslike * Dr. iur., Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg) and Visiting Researcher at the Harvard Animal Law & Policy Program. This article presents the third part of the research project “Trilogy on a Legal Theory of Animal Rights,” which is generously funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. For insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article, I am indebted to John Adenitire, Hadar Aviram, Charlotte Blattner, Alasdair Cochrane, Raffael Fasel, Guillaume Futhazar, Chris Green, Jérôme de Hemptinne, Visa Kurki, Will Kymlicka, Angela Martin, Peter Niesen, Karsten Nowrot, Anne Peters, Marco Roscini, Sparsha Saha, Jeff Sebo, Tom Sparks, Kristen Stilt, Dinesh Wadiwel, Derek Williams, Joe Wills, and Christoph Winter, as well as the numerous participants in the NYU Animal Studies Reading Group, Harvard Animal Law & Policy Workshop, and MPIL Research Seminar. A revised version of this paper, entitled ‘Animal Warfare Law and the Need for an Animal Law of Peace: A Comparative Reconstruction’, has been accepted for publication in the 2022 volume of the American Journal of Comparative Law. ISSN 2702-9360 MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2021-10 1 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3824924 … And yet somehow the most matter-of-fact person could not help thinking of the hogs; they were so innocent … They had done nothing to deserve it; and it was adding insult to injury, as the thing was done here, swinging them up in this cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a pretense of apology, without the homage of a tear … but this slaughtering machine ran on … It was like some horrible crime committed in a dungeon, all unseen and unheeded, buried out of sight and of memory. Upton Sinclair, The Jungle This article puts forward a novel analogy between animal welfare law (AWL) – the body of law governing the protection, and alleviating the suffering, of animals caught in situations of exploitative use – and international humanitarian law (IHL) – the body of law governing the protection, and alleviating the suffering, of humans caught in situations of war and other armed conflict. It likens the humane impetus informing AWL in its attempt to humanize innately violent and inhumane practices of exploitative animal use to the humanitarian thrust undergirding IHL in its endeavor to humanize innately violent and inhumane practices of warfare. While the protection of animals under the laws of war has recently begun to get some scholarly attention,1 and a few authors have entertained the idea of transferring concepts from the context of war to animals or of deploying the very concept of war to capture the violent character of contemporary human-animal relations,2 this article explores uncharted territory. It advances a new conception of AWL as a kind of warfare law – as it were, an “animal warfare law.” At first glance, reframing animal welfare law as an (analogical) warfare law may strike some readers as a bold, purely rhetorical, or polemic move. Surely, one might think, the breakdown of civilization unfolding on the battlefield in the exceptional state of war cannot, 1 See THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS IN WARTIME (Robert Kolb, Anne Peters & Jérôme de Hemptinne eds., forthcoming); Marco Roscini, Animals and the Law of Armed Conflict, 47 ISR. Y.B. HUM. RTS. 35 (2017); Karsten Nowrot, Animals at War: The Status of “Animal Soldiers” under International Humanitarian Law, 40 HISTORICAL SOCIAL RESEARCH 128 (2015); Jérôme de Hemptinne, The Protection of Animals During Warfare, 111 AJIL UNBOUND 272 (2017). 2 See Alasdair Cochrane & Steve Cooke, “Humane Intervention”: The International Protection of Animal Rights, 12 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ETHICS 106 (2016); DINESH JOSEPH WADIWEL, THE WAR AGAINST ANIMALS (2015). 2 MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2021-10 ISSN 2702-9360 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3824924 and must not, be compared with the routinized procedures orderly executed in the abattoir – arguably the “paradigmatic space” of modern industrialized civilization.3 Yet, this article neither contends that a literal war is being waged against animals, nor does it purport that AWL actually is a warfare law. What it claims is that irrespective of whether one regards the factual phenomenon of “human violence towards animals as warlike,”4 the normative regime governing it is, in significant respects, warfare law-like. As this article will show, the seemingly far-fetched (and certainly unorthodox) comparison between AWL and IHL is analytically sound, given the striking similarities to be discovered between these two bodies of law. Notably, both are marked by the aporia of humanizing the inhumane. Both legal regimes seek to balance the necessity of instrumental violence and countervailing humane considerations, which is most clearly expressed in the shared principle of unnecessary suffering. And with regard to both AWL and IHL, critical voices stress that the legal regulation of violence may not only serve to humanize, but also legitimize and perpetuate the very institutions that invariably inflict suffering on human and nonhuman animals. It is in the light of these parallelisms that this article formulates its key conceptual claim: that existing AWL is best understood as a kind of warfare law which regulates and restrains violent activities within an ongoing “war on animals.” Moreover, far from being a mere intellectual figment, the novel concept of animal warfare law engenders instructive insights and much-needed impulses for rethinking, reconstructing, and complementing the corpus juris of animal-protective law.5 The current state of legal animal protection, and of the scholarly discourse surrounding it, is inadequate. On the one hand, existing animal protection law falls gravely short of fulfilling its eponymous 3 Alejandro Lorite Escorihuela, A Global Slaughterhouse, 2 HELSINKI REVIEW OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE 25, 27 (2011). 4 WADIWEL, supra note 2, at 3. 5 In common parlance, “animal protection” and “animal welfare” are often used synonymously, because the two concepts have been largely coextensive so far. By contrast, I will use “legal animal protection” (“animal protection law,” “animal-protective
Recommended publications
  • Foucault and Animals

    Foucault and Animals

    Foucault and Animals Edited by Matthew Chrulew, Curtin University Dinesh Joseph Wadiwel, The University of Sydney LEIDEN | BOSTON For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents Foreword vii List of Contributors viii Editors’ Introduction: Foucault and Animals 1 Matthew Chrulew and Dinesh Joseph Wadiwel PART 1 Discourse and Madness 1 Terminal Truths: Foucault’s Animals and the Mask of the Beast 19 Joseph Pugliese 2 Chinese Dogs and French Scapegoats: An Essay in Zoonomastics 37 Claire Huot 3 Violence and Animality: An Investigation of Absolute Freedom in Foucault’s History of Madness 59 Leonard Lawlor 4 The Order of Things: The Human Sciences are the Event of Animality 87 Saïd Chebili (Translated by Matthew Chrulew and Jefffrey Bussolini) PART 2 Power and Discipline 5 “Taming the Wild Profusion of Existing Things”? A Study of Foucault, Power, and Human/Animal Relationships 107 Clare Palmer 6 Dressage: Training the Equine Body 132 Natalie Corinne Hansen For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV vi CONTENTS 7 Foucault’s Menagerie: Cock Fighting, Bear Baiting, and the Genealogy of Human-Animal Power 161 Alex Mackintosh PART 3 Science and Biopolitics 8 The Birth of the Laboratory Animal: Biopolitics, Animal Experimentation, and Animal Wellbeing 193 Robert G. W. Kirk 9 Animals as Biopolitical Subjects 222 Matthew Chrulew 10 Biopower, Heterogeneous Biosocial Collectivities and Domestic Livestock Breeding 239 Lewis Holloway and Carol Morris PART 4 Government and Ethics 11 Apum Ordines: Of Bees and Government 263 Craig McFarlane 12 Animal Friendship as a Way of Life: Sexuality, Petting and Interspecies Companionship 286 Dinesh Joseph Wadiwel 13 Foucault and the Ethics of Eating 317 Chloë Taylor Afterword 339 Paul Patton Index 345 For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV CHAPTER 8 The Birth of the Laboratory Animal: Biopolitics, Animal Experimentation, and Animal Wellbeing Robert G.
  • Animal Farm" Is the Story of a Farm Where the Animals Expelled Their

    Animal Farm" Is the Story of a Farm Where the Animals Expelled Their

    Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/32376 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation Author: Vugts, Berrie Title: The case against animal rights : a literary intervention Issue Date: 2015-03-18 Introduction The last four decades have shown an especially intense and thorough academic reflection on the relation between man and animal. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of journals on the question of the animal within the fields of the humanities and social sciences worldwide.1 Yet also outside the academy animals now seem to preoccupy the popular mindset more than ever before. In 2002, the Netherlands was the first country in the world where a political party was established (the so-called “Partij voor de Dieren” or PvdD: Party for the Animals) that focused predominantly on animal issues. Heated discussions about factory-farming, the related spread of diseases (BSE/Q Fever), hunting and fishing practices, the inbreeding of domestic animals, are now commonplace. Animals, as we tend to call a large range of incredibly diverse creatures, come to us in many different ways. We encounter them as our pets and on our plates, animation movies dominate the charts and artists in sometimes rather experimental genres engage in the question of the animal.2 Globally speaking, animals might be considered key players in the climate debate insofar as the alarming rate of extinction of certain species is often taken to be indicative of our feeble efforts at preserving what is commonly referred to as “nature.” At the same time, these rates serve, albeit indirectly, as a grim reminder of the possible end of human existence itself.
  • It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: the Laterial Shift to Liberation

    It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: the Laterial Shift to Liberation

    Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: The Lateral Shift to Liberation Barry Kew rom an acute and, some will argue, a harsh, a harsh, fantastic or even tactically naive F naive perspective, this article examines examines animal liberation, vegetarianism vegetarianism and veganism in relation to a bloodless culture ideal. It suggests that the movement's repeated anomalies, denial of heritage, privileging of vegetarianism, and other concessions to bloody culture, restrict rather than liberate the full subversionary and revelatory potential of liberationist discourse, and with representation and strategy implications. ‘Only the profoundest cultural needs … initially caused adult man [sic] to continue to drink cow milk through life’.1 In The Social Construction of Nature, Klaus Eder develops a useful concept of two cultures - the bloody and the bloodless. He understands the ambivalence of modernity and the relationship to nature as resulting from the perpetuation of a precarious equilibrium between the ‘bloodless’ tradition from within Judaism and the ‘bloody’ tradition of ancient Greece. In Genesis, killing entered the world after the fall from grace and initiated a complex and hierarchically-patterned system of food taboos regulating distance between nature and culture. But, for Eder, it is in Israel that the reverse process also begins, in the taboo on killing. This ‘civilizing’ process replaces the prevalent ancient world practice of 1 Calvin. W. Schwabe, ‘Animals in the Ancient World’ in Aubrey Manning and James Serpell, (eds), Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (Routledge, London, 1994), p.54. 1 Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 human sacrifice by animal sacrifice, this by sacrifices of the field, and these by money paid to the sacrificial priests.2 Modern society retains only a very broken connection to the Jewish tradition of the bloodless sacrifice.
  • Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics Kenneth R

    Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics Kenneth R

    THE PALGRAVE MACMILLAN ANIMAL ETHICS SERIES Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics Kenneth R. Valpey The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series Series Editors Andrew Linzey Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics Oxford, UK Priscilla N. Cohn Pennsylvania State University Villanova, PA, USA Associate Editor Clair Linzey Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics Oxford, UK In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the ethics of our treatment of animals. Philosophers have led the way, and now a range of other scholars have followed from historians to social scientists. From being a marginal issue, animals have become an emerging issue in ethics and in multidisciplinary inquiry. Tis series will explore the challenges that Animal Ethics poses, both conceptually and practically, to traditional understandings of human-animal relations. Specifcally, the Series will: • provide a range of key introductory and advanced texts that map out ethical positions on animals • publish pioneering work written by new, as well as accomplished, scholars; • produce texts from a variety of disciplines that are multidisciplinary in character or have multidisciplinary relevance. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14421 Kenneth R. Valpey Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics Kenneth R. Valpey Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies Oxford, UK Te Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series ISBN 978-3-030-28407-7 ISBN 978-3-030-28408-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28408-4 © Te Editor(s) (if applicable) and Te Author(s) 2020. Tis book is an open access publication. Open Access Tis book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
  • Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship

    Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship

    Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014), pp. 201–219 doi:10.1093/ojls/gqu001 Published Advance Access February 5, 2014 Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship Will Kymlicka* and Sue Donaldson** Abstract —Citizenship has been at the core of struggles by historically excluded Downloaded from groups for respect and inclusion. Can citizenship be extended even further to domesticated animals? We begin this article by sketching an argument for why justice requires the extension of citizenship to domesticated animals, above and beyond compassionate care, stewardship or universal basic rights. We then consider two objections to this argument. Some animal rights theorists worry that extending citizenship to domesticated animals, while it may sound progressive, would in fact http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/ be bad for animals, providing yet another basis for policing their behaviour to fit human needs and interests. Critics of animal rights, on the other hand, worry that the inclusion of ‘unruly’ beasts would be bad for democracy, eroding its core values and principles. We attempt to show that both objections are misplaced, and that animal citizenship would both promote justice for animals and deepen fundamental democratic dispositions and values. Keywords: citizenship, animal rights, justice, co-operation at Queen's University on June 23, 2014 1. Introduction In our recent book Zoopolis, we made the case for a distinctly ‘political theory of animal rights’.1 In this Lecture, we attempt to extend that argument, and to respond to some critics of it, by focusing specifically on the novel idea of ‘animal citizenship’. To begin, let us briefly situate our approach in the larger animal rights debate.
  • The Great Ape Project — and Beyond*

    The Great Ape Project — and Beyond*

    The Great Ape Project — and Beyond* PAOLA CAVALIERI & PETER SINGER Why the Project? Aristotle refers to human slaves as 'animated property'. The phrase exactly describes the current status of nonhuman animals. Human slavery therefore presents an enlightening parallel to this situation. We shall explore this parallel in order to single out a past response to human slavery that may suggest a suitable way of responding to present-day animal slavery. Not long ago such a parallel would have been considered outrageous. Recently, however, there has been growing recognition of the claim that a sound ethic must be free of bias or arbitrary discrimination based in favour of our own species. This recognition makes possible a more impartial appraisal of the exploitative practices that mark our civilisation. Slavery in the ancient world has been the subject of a lively debate among historians. How did it arise? Why did it end? Was there a characteristic 'slave mode of production'? We do not need to go into all these disputes. We shall focus instead on the distinctive element of slavery: the fact that the human being becomes property in the strict sense of the term. This is sometimes referred to as 'chattel slavery' - a term that stresses the parallel between the human institution, and the ownership of animals, for the term 'cattle' is derived from 'chattel'. Slave societies are those societies of which chattel slavery is a major feature. They are relatively rare in human history. The best known examples existed in the ancient world, and in North and Central America after European colonisation.
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION in Re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMEN

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION in Re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMEN

    USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 1 of 354 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE ) (MDL 1700) SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT ) PRACTICES LITIGATION ) ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Carlene Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Case No. 3:05-cv-530 RLM ) Ground Package Systems, Inc., ) ) PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 11, 2019, to consider final approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, and Dominic Lupo1 (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Certified Class, and Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) (collectively, “the Parties”), the terms of which Settlement are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in support of Preliminary Approval of the Kansas Class Action 1 Carlene Craig withdrew as a Named Plaintiff on November 29, 2006. See MDL Doc. No. 409. Named Plaintiffs Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco are not movants for final approval and filed an objection [MDL Doc. Nos. 3251/3261]. USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 2 of 354 Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3154-1]. Also before the Court is ERISA Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and for Payment of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, filed with the Court on October 19, 2018 [MDL Doc.
  • 4​Th​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE CIUDAD DE

    4​Th​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE CIUDAD DE

    th 4 ​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE ​ CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, 17 TO 24 JANUARY, 2018 SOCIAL PROGRAMME: ROYAL PEDREGAL HOTEL ACADEMIC PROGRAMME: NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO Auditorio Alfonso Caso and Anexos de la Facultad de Derecho FINAL PROGRAMME (Online version linked to abstracts. Download PDF here) 1/47 All delegates please note: ​ 1. Presentation slots may have needed to be moved by the organisers, and may appear in a different place from that of the final printed programme. Please consult the schedule located in the Conference Programme upon arrival at the Conference for your presentation time. 2. Please note that presenters have to ensure the following times for presentation to allow for adequate time for questions from the floor and smooth transition of sessions. Delegates must not stray from their allocated 20 minutes. Further, delegates are welcome to move within sessions, therefore presenters MUST limit their talk to the allocated time. Therefore, Q&A will be AFTER each talk, and NOT at the end of the three presentations. Plenary and Invited Talks – 45 min. presentation and 15 min. discussion (Q&A). 3. For panels, each panellist must stick strictly to a 10 minute time frame, before discussion with the floor commences. 4. Note that co-authors may be presenting at the conference in place of, or with the main author. For all co-authors, delegates are advised to consult the Conference Abstracts link on the Minding Animals website. Use of the term et al is provided where there is more than two authors ​ ​ of an abstract. 5. Moderator notes will be available at all front desks in tutorial rooms, along with Time Sheets (5, 3 and 1 minute Left).
  • The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap

    The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap

    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol.31, No. 2, 2014 doi: 10.1111/japp.12051 The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap OSCAR HORTA ABSTRACT The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges.This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings.The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds. 1. Introduction The argument from species overlap, which has also been called — misleadingly, I will argue — the argument from marginal cases, points out that the criteria that are com- monly used to deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration fail to draw a line between human beings and other sentient animals, since there are also humans who fail to satisfy them.1 This argument has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics for two purposes.
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1

    Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1

    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 11 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Steven Best, Chief Editor Pg. 2-3 Introducing Critical Animal Studies Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella II, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 4-5 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Arguments: Strategies for Promoting Animal Rights Katherine Perlo Pg. 6-19 Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism David Sztybel Pg. 20-54 Unmasking the Animal Liberation Front Using Critical Pedagogy: Seeing the ALF for Who They Really Are Anthony J. Nocella II Pg. 55-64 The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: New, Improved, and ACLU-Approved Steven Best Pg. 65-81 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, by Peter Singer ed. (2005) Reviewed by Matthew Calarco Pg. 82-87 Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully (2003) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 88-91 Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, eds. (2004) Reviewed by Lauren E. Eastwood Pg. 92 Introduction Welcome to the sixth issue of our journal. You’ll first notice that our journal and site has undergone a name change. The Center on Animal Liberation Affairs is now the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, and the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal is now the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. The name changes, decided through discussion among our board members, were prompted by both philosophical and pragmatic motivations.
  • A Fight for Life by Maria Sztybel

    A Fight for Life by Maria Sztybel

    A Fight for Life by Maria Sztybel ~ excerpts from a Holocaust memoir ~ Compiled by Dr. David Sztybel, Jr. with kind permission from translator, Lola Drach 1. Background In 2006, my article – “Can the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?” – was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Ethics and the Environment. Later, based on extending that research, I created the Holocaust Comparison Project at davidsztybel.info/16.html. Maria Sztybel – who changed her name to “Maria Rok” after marrying – is my aunt, now long deceased. Maria was the eldest of my father’s siblings, all children of David Sztybel, Senior. Many individuals object to comparing the treatment of nonhuman animals to the Holocaust partly because it is put forward by non-Jews, non- Holocaust-survivors, or people who do not take seriously the egregious death and suffering that occurred during this historical phenomenon. This compilation belies these logically off-base attempts to discredit the comparison. I, David Sztybel, Jr., consider myself to be an indirect Holocaust survivor. After all, first and most obviously, the Nazi death-mechanisms of deportation to killing camps – and associated horrors – very nearly consumed my grandparents’ whole family, but for a rather strange historical contingency that I will detail below. Second, there were also threats from a near-pogrom (or massacre of Jews – recounted below). Third, there was the Nazi military invasion of Poland. The latter killed many of my father’s fellow townspeople. And fourth and fifth, more particularly, my father, Bernard Sztybel, almost died during this period, as narrated in two childhood incidents documented below.
  • Educational Rights and the Roles of Virtues, Perfectionism, and Cultural Progress

    Educational Rights and the Roles of Virtues, Perfectionism, and Cultural Progress

    The Law of Education: Educational Rights and the Roles of Virtues, Perfectionism, and Cultural Progress R. GEORGE WRIGHT* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 385 II. EDUCATION: PURPOSES, RECENT OUTCOMES, AND LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR REFORM ................................................................ 391 A. EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND RIGHTS LANGUAGE ...................... 391 B. SOME RECENT GROUNDS FOR CONCERN IN FULFILLING EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ............................................................. 393 C. THE BROAD RANGE OF AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES FOR THE LEGAL REFORM OF EDUCATION ............................................................... 395 III. SOME LINKAGES BETWEEN EDUCATION AND THE BASIC VIRTUES, PERFECTIONISM, AND CULTURAL PROGRESS ..................................... 397 IV. VIRTUES AND THEIR LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ...................................................................... 401 V. PERFECTIONISM AND ITS LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ...................................................................... 410 VI. CULTURAL PROGRESS OVER TIME AND ITS LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM .............................................. 417 VII. CONCLUSION: EDUCATION LAW AS RIGHTS-CENTERED AND AS THE PURSUIT OF WORTHY VALUES AND GOALS: THE EXAMPLE OF HORNE V. FLORES ............................................................................................ 431 I. INTRODUCTION The law of education